DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action addressing U.S. Application 18/505,583.
On November 19, 2025, a Non-Final Office Action (“NFOA”) was mailed in which claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 were rejected as being anticipated by Dutta.
On February 11, 2025, the Applicant filed their response to the NFOA which included claim amendments and arguments toward the outstanding rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Panteleev et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2024/0155654 hereinafter “Panteleev” which claims priority to provisional application 63/169,710 (“the ‘710-prov”)).
Claim 37 of Pantaleev recites and is supported at least at the following locations in the 710-prov.
An apparatus for a user equipment (UE), the apparatus comprising:
See Example 3 at pages 8-10.
processing circuitry to configure the UE to:
See Example 3 at pages 8-10.
determine that an uplink transmission to a 5th generation NodeB (gNB) is to occur in a first slot and first inter-UE coordination signaling for a first sidelink transmission from a first UE and second inter-UE coordination signaling for a second sidelink transmission from a second UE is to occur in the first slot;
See Example 3 at pages 8-10.
prioritize the uplink transmission over the first inter-UE coordination signaling and the second inter-UE coordination signaling; and
See Example 3 at pages 8-10.
prioritize the first inter-UE coordination signaling and the second inter-UE coordination signaling such that a sidelink hybrid acknowledgment request (HARQ) acknowledgment/negative acknowledgment (ACK/NACK) or NACK only signaling is prioritized over a half-duplex (HD) or co-channel collision (CC) feedback indication; and
See Example 3 at pages 8-10.
a memory configured to store the first inter-UE coordination signaling and the second inter-UE coordination signaling.
See Example 3 at pages 8-10.
Referring to method claim 1, device claim 8, and NT-CRM claim 15, Panteleev teaches a method for use in a wireless device (see figure 2), wherein the wireless device comprises one or more processors (see item 202 in figure 2); and a memory (i.e. an NT-CRM) storing instructions that when executed by the processor implement the method (see items 204 and 206 in figure 2), the method comprising:
determining, by a first wireless device, one or more wireless devices from among a second wireless device and a third wireless device for inter user equipment (inter-UE) coordination based on (see ¶¶ 62, 66, 73, 83, and 104-106, see also the ‘710-prov at Fig. 2-4 and pages 7-8):
a first priority of one or more first sidelink transmissions transmitted by the second wireless device (see ¶¶ 62, 66, 73, 83, and 104-106, see also the ‘710-prov at Fig. 2-4 and pages 7-8);
a second priority of one or more second sidelink transmissions transmitted by the third wireless device (see ¶¶ 62, 66, 73, 83, and 104-106, see also the ‘710-prov at Fig. 2-4 and pages 7-8); and
one or more first resources of the one or more first sidelink transmissions being overlapped with one or more second resources of the one or more second sidelink transmissions (see ¶¶ 62, 66, and 73, see also the ‘710-prov at Fig. 2-4 and pages 7-8); and
transmitting coordination information for the inter-UE coordination to the second wireless device, based on the determined one or more wireless devices comprising the second wireless device (see ¶¶ 62, 66, 73, 83, and 104-106, see also the ‘710-prov at Fig. 2-4 and pages 7-8).
Referring to method claim 2, device claim 9, and NT-CRM claim 16, Pantaleev teaches the method of claim 1 (as shown above), and Pantaleev further teaches wherein the first wireless device is an intended receiver of the one or more first sidelink transmissions by the second wireless device and the one or more second sidelink transmissions by the third wireless device (see ¶ 155 “…RX-based feedback indicating sidelink conflicts to TX UEs.”).
Referring to method claim 3, device claim 10, and NT-CRM claim 17, Pantaleev teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches determining, based on the inter-UE coordination, at least one of the one or more first resources and the one or more second resources (see ¶ 125).
Referring to method claim 4, device claim 11, and NT-CRM claim 18, Pantaleev teaches the method of claim 1, as shown above, and further teaches, the inter-UE coordination is for: selecting a first set of resources of the one or more first resources; or selecting a second set of resources of the one or more second resources (see ¶ 125).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 12-14, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Referring to claims 5, 12, and 19, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to fairly teach or suggest determining second and third wireless devices belong to a wireless group based on first time duration and a second time duration respectively, in combination with the other requirements of the claims. Claims 6 and 7 would be allowable at least based on their dependence on claim 5. Claims 13 and 14 would be allowable at least based on their dependence on claim 12. Claim 20 would be allowable at least based on its dependence on claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following reference is cited to further show the state of the art as it pertains to the Applicant’s invention:
U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0279536 to Khsiba teaches a UE transmitting coordinating information to one or more other UEs, however Khsiba’s method occurs prior to SL transmission, however the Applicant’s claims require the SL transmissions to have already occurred.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Signed:
/ERON J SORRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992